Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
To cite this Article Manning, Robert, Wang, Benjamin, Valliere, William, Lawson, Steven and Newman, Peter(2002)
'Research to Estimate and Manage Carrying Capacity of a Tourist Attraction: A Study of Alcatraz Island', Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 10: 5, 388 404
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09669580208667175
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669580208667175
Carrying Capacity
The question of how much public use can be accommodated in a park or
related tourist attraction is often framed in terms of carrying capacity. Indeed,
much has been written, in both the scientific literature and popular press, about
the carrying capacity of parks and related tourist attractions (e.g. Manning, 2001;
Mitchell, 1994; Stankey & Manning, 1986; Wilkinson, 1995). The underlying
concept of carrying capacity has a rich history in the natural resource professions. In particular, it has been applied in wildlife and range management where
it refers to the number of animals that can be maintained in a given habitat
(Dasmann, 1964). Carrying capacity has obvious parallels and intuitive appeal in
the field of park and tourism management. However, the first rigorous applications of carrying capacity to management of parks and related areas did not
occur until the 1960s.
These initial scientific applications suggested that the concept was more
complex in this new management context. At first, as might be expected, the
focus was placed on the relationship between visitor use and environmental
conditions. The working hypothesis was that increasing numbers of visitors
cause greater environmental impact as measured by soil compaction, destruction of vegetation and related variables. It soon became apparent, however, that
there was another critical dimension of carrying capacity dealing with social
aspects of the visitor experience. Wagar (1964), for example, in his early and
0966-9582/02/05 0388-17 $20.00/0
JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
388
389
important monograph on the application of carrying capacity to outdoor recreation, reported that his study
Wagars point was that as more people visit a park or related area, not only can
the environmental resources of the area be affected, but the quality of the visitor
experience as well. Again, the working hypothesis was that increasing numbers
of visitors cause greater social impacts as measured by crowding and related
variables. Thus, as applied to parks and related tourist attractions, carrying
capacity has two components: environmental and social.
The early work on carrying capacity has since blossomed into an extended
literature on the impacts of visitor use and their application to carrying capacity
(e.g. Graefe et al., 1984; Hammitt & Cole, 1998; Kuss et al., 1990; Lime & Stankey,
1971; Manning, 1985, 1999; Shelby & Heberlein, 1986; Stankey & Lime, 1973). But
despite this growing scientific literature, efforts to determine and apply carrying
capacity have sometimes failed. The principal difficulty lies in determining how
much impact, such as crowding, is too much. Theoretical development, backed
up by empirical research, generally confirms that increasing use levels and
encounters among visitors leads to increased environmental and social impacts.
But how much impact should be allowed? This basic question is often referred to
as the limits of acceptable change (Frissell & Stankey, 1972; Lime, 1970). Given
substantial demand for public use of parks and related areas, some decline or
change in the quality of natural/cultural resources and the visitor experience
appears inevitable. But how much decline or change is acceptable or appropriate
before management intervention is warranted?
A
B
Crowding
was initiated with the view that carrying capacity of recreation lands could
be determined primarily in terms of ecology and the deterioration of areas.
However, it soon became obvious that the resource-oriented point of view
must be augmented by consideration of human values.
Y2
2
Y1
1
X11
X2
2
Visitor Use
390
This issue is illustrated graphically in Figure 1. This figure addresses the social
impact of crowding, and two hypothetical relationships between visitor use and
crowding are shown. It is clear from both that visitor use and crowding are
related: increasing numbers of visits cause visitors to feel increasingly crowded.
However, it is not clear at what point carrying capacity has been reached. The
hypothetical relationships in Figure 1 suggest that some crowding is inevitable,
given even relatively low levels of visitor use. Thus, some level of crowding must
be tolerated if parks and related tourist attractions are to remain open for public
use. For the relationship defined by line A, X1 and X2 represent levels of visitor
use that result in differing levels of crowding as defined by points Y1 and Y2,
respectively. But which of these points Y1 or Y2, or some other point along this
axis represents the maximum amount of crowding that is acceptable? Ultimately, this is a value judgement. Again, the principal difficulty in carrying
capacity determination lies in deciding how much crowding (or of some other
impact) is acceptable. Empirical relationships such as those in Figure 1 can be
helpful in making informed decisions about carrying capacity, but they must be
supplemented with other information and, ultimately, management judgements.
To emphasise and further clarify this issue, some writers have suggested distinguishing between descriptive and evaluative (or prescriptive) components of
carrying capacity (Shelby & Heberlein, 1984, 1986). The descriptive component
of carrying capacity focuses on factual, objective data such as the types of relationships in Figure 1. For example, what is the relationship between the number
of visitors entering a park and the number of encounters that occur among
groups of visitors? Or what is the relationship between the level of visitor use and
visitor perceptions of crowding? The evaluative or prescriptive component of
carrying capacity determination concerns the seemingly more subjective issue of
how much impact or change in resource conditions and the quality of the visitor
experience is acceptable. For example, how many contacts between visitor
groups are appropriate? What level of perceived crowding should be allowed
before management intervention is needed?
Recent experience with carrying capacity suggests that answers to the above
questions can be found through formulation of management objectives and
development of associated indicators and standards of quality (Graefe et al.,
1990; Manning, 1997, 1998; Manning et al., 1998; National Park Service, 1997;
Stankey et al., 1985). This approach to carrying capacity focuses principal
emphasis on defining the degree of resource protection and the type of visitor
experience to be provided and maintained, monitoring conditions over time, and
adopting management practices to ensure that acceptable conditions have been
maintained.
Management objectives are broad, narrative statements that define the degree of
resource protection and the type of visitor experience to be provided. They are
based largely on review of the purpose and significance of the area under consideration. Formulation of management objectives may involve review of legal,
policy and planning documents; consideration by an interdisciplinary planning
and management team; historic precedent; local, regional, national or international context of the park or related tourist attraction; and public involvement.
Indicators of quality are measurable, manageable variables that reflect the
essence or meaning of management objects; they are quantifiable proxies or
391
392
thousand annually, and continues to grow rapidly. There is concern that visitation may exceed carrying capacity, and a programme of research was undertaken
to help estimate and manage carrying capacity of the island. This programme of
research was conducted to help apply the VERP framework noted above.
393
394
ferries, length of time between debarkation of visitors on the island and their
arrival into the cellhouse audiotour ticket line, time spent in the cellhouse
audiotour ticket line, and time spent touring the cellhouse.
The structure of the model was built with hierarchial blocks that represented
specific components of the Alcatraz Island visitor system. A block labelled
Dock generated simulated visitor groups as they disembarked from ferry boats.
A block labelled Up the Hill represents the time that visitors take to walk from
the dock to the prison cellhouse. Blocks labelled Audio Tour Line and Cashier
represent the time visitors spend in line waiting to enter the prison cellhouse and
purchase their audio tour tape and player. Blocks labeled Tour Beginning,
Tour Middle and Michigan Avenue represent the time that visitors take to
proceed through sections of the tour of the prison cellhouse. The data used to
build and operate these blocks were derived from the detailed counts and observations of visitor use described above. More detailed information on this
approach to simlation modelling and its application to outdoor recreation and
tourism can be found in Lawson and Manning (2002), Wang and Manning (1999),
and Wang et al. (2001).
A short survey was also administered to 187 visitors as they completed the
cellhouse audiotour to determine the relationship between PAOT in Michigan
Avenue as reported by visitors using the computer-edited photographs and the
actual PAOT in Michigan Avenue as estimated by the simulation model.
395
4
3
2
Acceptability
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
10
22
34
46
58
70
Acceptability
Management Action
44
44
396
110
100
90
80
PAOT
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 am
9:30
480
5:30
pm
Time of Simulation Day
National Park Service should allow a maximum of 44 PAOT, and (as noted
above) would find a maximum of 44 PAOT to be acceptable. These data suggest a
potential range of crowding-related standards of quality. Neither of the points
defining this range (25 to 44), nor any of points along this range, are necessarily
any more valid than any other. Each point has potential strengths and weaknesses. For example, standards of quality based on preference-related norms
may result in very high quality visitor experiences but would restrict access to a
relatively low number of visitors. In contrast, standards of quality based on
acceptability or management action allow access to a greater number of visitors
but may result in visitor experiences of lesser quality. Findings that offer insights
into multiple evaluative dimensions provide a potentially rich base of information and may lead to formulation of the most thoughtful and informed standards
of quality. Such data allow more explicit understanding of the potential tradeoffs
between use level and quality of the visitor experience.
Computer simulation model
The second element of research developed a computer-based simulation
model of visitor use at Alcatraz Island. The model was used to estimate the
maximum total daily use levels (i.e. daily carrying capacities) that could be
accommodated without violating the normative crowding standards shown in
Table 1. Model output could be generated in several graphic and numerical
forms. For example, Figure 4 traces minute-by-minute PAOT levels in Michigan
Avenue over the duration of a simulated day. This particular model run was
generated using an average summer day total use level of 4464 visitors (derived
from the counts of visitor use taken to construct the model). It can be seen from
the graph that the number of visitors in Michigan Avenue fluctuates between
about 50 and about 90 throughout most of the day. The model was ultimately run
multiple times (to average out the randomness associated with each individual
model run) to estimate the maximum total daily use levels that could be
397
2560
4800
4800
398
for the preference based standard of quality, daily carrying capacity drops from
approximately 2500 visitors per day under the existing ferry schedule to approximately 1840 visitors per day under the reduced ferry schedule. Comparable
increases in carrying capacity are not possible in this case by increasing the
frequency of ferry service beyond the existing schedule. For example, increasing
the frequency of departures to every 15 minutes would increase acceptability
and management action based carrying capacity from approximately 4800 visitors per day (under existing ferry service) to approximately 4896 visitors per day,
and would increase preference based carrying capacity from approximately 2560
visitors per day to approximately 2656 visitors per day.
Discussion
The programme of research described in this paper raises a number of issues
regarding estimation and management of carrying capacity of parks and related
tourist attractions. As noted at the beginning of this paper, an emerging principle
of carrying capacity is that decision-making must be guided by management
objectives and associated indicators and standards of quality. A corollary of this
principle is that there is no one inherent carrying capacity of a park or tourist
attraction. Rather, each park or tourist attraction (or even site within such an
area) has a range of capacities depending upon the degree of resource protection
and type of visitor experience to be provided.
Data developed in this study illustrate this point. The number of people
encountered (PAOT) in the prison cellhouse is a potentially good indicator of
quality. Study findings show that nearly all visitors take the audiotour of the
prison cellhouse, and feel this is the highlight of their visit. However, there are
indications that visitors are concerned with growing use levels in the cellhouse.
Visitors rated crowding in the cellhouse as the most problematic of several
visitor-related issues. Moreover, visitor perceptions of current use levels in the
cellhouse are approaching the maximum PAOT judged acceptable (as reported
in Table 2). Finally, visitors rated the prison cellhouse as somewhat crowded
(an average of 4.2 on a 9-point crowding scale that ranged from 1 (not at all
crowded) to 9 (extremely crowded)), and this represented the highest level of
crowding for any location on the island. However, standards of quality for this
indicator vary substantially, depending upon the evaluative dimension used in
the study (i.e. the type of visitor experience). Crowding norms ranged from a low
associated with preference (a very high quality experience) to a high associated
with acceptability and management action (a lower quality experience). The
carrying capacity of the prison cellhouse, and ultimately Alcatraz Island as a
whole, varies accordingly.
A related principle of carrying capacity is that some element of management
judgement must be exercised. Again, the data developed in this study illustrate
this principle. What point (or points) along the range of standards of quality and
associated carrying capacities should be selected for management purposes?
This is ultimately a judgement that should consider a variety of other factors
inherent in carrying capacity, including the purpose and significance of the area
(as may be defined in law or policy), the fragility of natural and/or cultural
resources, financial and/or personnel resources available for management,
399
400
401
402
Conclusions
The programme of research described in this paper was designed to support
application of the concept of carrying capacity to Alcatraz Island, an historic site
within the US National Park System, and an important tourist attraction. In
particular, it was designed to provide an empirical foundation for application of
the contemporary carrying capacity framework, VERP. Study findings suggest a
potentially important crowding-related indicator of quality (PAOT within the
prison cellhouse), a range of potential standards for this indicator variable, and
associated carrying capacities for the prison cellhouse and the Island as a whole.
Management judgements will still have to be rendered in choosing among alternative standards of quality and associated carrying capacities (or perhaps more
than one standard and carrying capacity to facilitate a diversity of visitor opportunities at the island). However, study data help to provide an informed basis for
such management judgements.
Within the field of parks and outdoor recreation, the concept of carrying
capacity has traditionally been applied to resource-based parks and related
areas. Nevertheless, the research described in this paper suggests that contemporary, indicator-based carrying capacity frameworks such as LAC and VERP,
along with an associated programme of research, can be applied to heavily used
historic sites and tourist attractions that include significant elements of the built
environment. In such cases, indicators of quality may vary from those conventionally used in outdoor recreation, such as the number of encounters with other
groups along trails per day and resource impacts to trails and campsites. Recent
and current research, for example in highly developed, urban recreation areas,
suggests that visitors are concerned with crowding and other recreation-related
impacts, but that these impacts are manifested in other ways. For example, a
potential indicator of quality for the visitor experience at Statue of Liberty
National Monument is the time required to wait in line to enter the Statue
(Manning et al., 1999b), and potential indicators of quality for the visitor experience
at Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area include the amount of litter,
vandalism and grafitti seen (Manning et al., 2001). Application of carrying capacity
frameworks and associated programmes of research should be expanded to a
full spectrum of parks and related tourist attractions to ensure protection of their
resource base and the quality of the visitor experience.
Correspondence
Any correspondence should be directed to Professor Robert E. Manning,
School of Natural Resources, University of Vermont, 356 Aiken Centre, Burlington,
VT 05405, USA (rmanning@nature.snr.uvm.edu).
403
Acknowledgements
Appreciation is expressed to National Park Service staff who assisted with this
study, including Marilyn Hof, Terri Thomas, and Nancy Horner.
References
Alldredge, R. (1973)Some capacity theory for parks and recreation areas. Trends 10, 209.
Becker, R., Jubenville, and Burnett, G. (1984) Fact and judgement in the search for a social
carrying capacity. Leisure Sciences 6: 47586.
Dasmann, R. (1964) Wildlife Biology. New York: John Wiley.
Frissell, S. and Stankey, G. (1972) Wilderness environmental quality: Search for social and
ecological harmony. Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters Annual Conference
(pp. 17083). Hot Springs, AR: Society of American Foresters.
Graefe, A., Vaske, J. and Kuss, F. (1984) Social carrying capacity: An integration and
synthesis of twenty years of research. Leisure Sciences 6, 395431.
Graefe, A., Kuss, F. and Vaske, J. (1990). Visitor Impact Management: The Planning Framework. Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation Association.
Hammitt, W. and Cole, D. (1998) Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management. New York:
John Wiley.
Heberlein, T., Alfano, G. and Ervin, L. (1986) Using a social carrying capacity model to
estimate the effects of marina development at the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore.
Leisure Sciences 8, 25774.
Kuss, F., Graefe, A. and Vaske, J. (1990) Visitor Impact Management: A Review of Research.
Washington, DC: National Parks and Conservation Association.
Lawson, S. and Manning, R. (2001).Solitude versus access: A study of tradeoffs in outdoor
recreation using indifference curve analysis. Leisure Sciences 23, 113.
Lawson, S. and Manning, R. (2002) Using simulation modeling to facilitate proactive
monitoring and adaptive management of social carrying capacity at Arches National
Park, Utah, USA. Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreationaland Protected
Areas (pp. 20510). Vienna, Austria: Bodenculture University.
Lewis, M., Lime, D. and Anderson, P. (1996) Paddle canoeists encounter norms in Minnesotas Boundary Waters Canoe Area wilderness. Leisure Sciences 18, 14360.
Lime, D. (1970) Research for determining use capacities of the Boundary Waters Canal
Area. Naturalist 21 (4), 913.
Lime, D. and Stankey, G. (1971) Carrying capacity: Maintaining outdoor recreation
quality. Recreation Symposium Proceedings (pp. 17484). USDA Forest Service.
Manning, R. and Potter, F. (1984) Computer simulation as a tool in teaching park and
wilderness management. Journal of Environmental Education 15, 39.
Manning, R. (1985) Crowding norms in backcountry settings: A review and synthesis.
Journal of Leisure Research 17, 7589.
Manning, R., Lime, D., Freimund, W. and Pitt, D. (1996a)Crowding norms at frontcountry
sites: A visual approach to setting standards of quality. Leisure Sciences 18, 3959.
Manning, R., Lime, D. and Hof, M. (1996b) Social carrying capacity of natural areas:
Theory and application in the US National Parks. Natural Areas Journal 16, 11827.
Manning, R. (1997) Social carrying capacity of parks and outdoor recreation areas. Parks
and Recreation 32, 328.
Manning, R. (1998) To provide for the enjoyment: Recreation management in the
National Parks. George Wright Forum 15, 620.
Manning, R., Jacobi, C., Valliere, W. and Wang, B. (1998) Standards of quality in parks and
recreation. Parks and Recreation 33, 8894.
Manning, R. (1999) Studies in Outdoor Recreation. Corvallis: Oregon State University.
Manning, R., Valliere, W., Wang, B. and Jacobi, C. (1999a) Crowding norms: Alternative
measurement approaches. Leisure Sciences 21, 97115.
Manning, R., Valliere, W., Wang, B., Lawson, S. and Treadwell, J. (1999b) Research to
Support Visitor Management at Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island National Monuments. University of Vermont Park Studies Laboratory.
404